Any good coach will tell you that the lifeblood of an athletic program is its ability to recruit new players. A respectable program will develop those recruits, but if there isn’t a steady stream or readily available source, the prospects of success diminish greatly. This is one of the current problems the Democratic Party faces. How so? The Democrats are aborting their own voters.
After losing the last five out of seven presidential races and not overcoming the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Senate or governorships, many Democrats have pondered solutions to their situation. Larry Eastman and Edward Larson provide explanations for Democrat’s woes, though in two different ways. If either (or both) are correct, there’s more trouble ahead.
Eastland found that the unlikely foe of the Democrats is abortion. Not necessarily the position of the party supporting the practice, but the actual procedure. Using results from a particular survey, he reported that Democrats have more abortions than Republicans. Eastland’s conclusion: The Democrats are losing elections because they have aborted their future voters.
The No. 1 predictor of voting behavior is family, specifically parents. If one’s parents vote, their child will likely vote when he becomes eligible. Likewise, social science studies suggest that one adopts the values of his parents. Additionally, if one’s parents consistently vote for a particular political party, there is strong evidence their child will mirror this choice.
By virtue of the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, there have been more than 40 million abortions, an average of about 1.5 million a year.
The loss of voters occurs 18 years after the abortions were conducted. Eastland labels these abortions victims, “missing voters.” Focusing on the 2000 general election, Eastland relates that the 12.7 million abortions that took place between 1973 and 1982 would have affected the election. Based on voter participation of the peers of those aborted, he discovered that there were 6 million “missing voters.”
This is where the problem is evident for the Democrats. Based on the percentages of abortions by party affiliation, the Democrats lost 2,978,605 voters while the Republicans lost 2,096,406 voters in 2000. Because the effects of abortion are permanent and compound every year, the voter gap will only grow in the future, according to Eastland.
Eastland’s study centered on applying the results of a national survey, which asked the question, “As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?” He then compared the results with voter participation in recent elections and party and ideology identification of the respondents.
Of the 40 million abortions since 1973, Eastland says Democrats accounted for 49 percent, or more than 19.7 million, while Republicans had just fewer than 35 percent or 13.9 million abortions. The remaining abortions include those by self-described Independents, 16 percent of the total.
These results indicate that Democrats are having more than their fair share of abortions, as they constitute about 44 percent of the electorate. Republicans, on the other hand, are having fewer abortions than their portion of the electorate, which is 39 percent.
Eastland notes the irony of the situation: The strongest supporters of the principle of abortion are those who suffer the most from the practice of it.
Larson, a professor at the University of Georgia, predicts similar hurdles for the party though for a slightly different reason: birthrates of voters.
Larson notes that individuals who tend to be conservative or Republican are inclined to have more children. This is not a new phenomenon, but like the missing voters, the effect has been a bit delayed.
According to Larson, the average birthrate for religious individuals – both evangelical Christian and conservative Roman Catholic – is approaching four children per married couple. Surveys show that non-religious people tend to vote Democratic more than Republican. The birthrate for these individuals has been less than two children per couple. Not only are they having fewer children, liberal voters are not even replacing their own votes.
Families that had more children 20 years ago produce more potential voters to pick up on the voting habits of the parents. Referring to this phenomenon as a “Darwinian advantage,” Larson sees a grim future for Democrats.
It would be unreasonable for conservatives – particularly Christians – to endorse abortion or evolution to gain political power, but the irony is astounding.
History suggests that even if the Democratic Party does suffer from the unintended consequences of abortion or evolution, the dominance of one political party is not permanent. But that does not change the fact that the Democrats are reaping the harvest of their own philosophy.